DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

What is the purpose of marriage? Maybe I don't know.

My guess is that there are many different purposes depending on who you ask.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Holy ****.

So it's OK in your mind to have separate professional golf leagues for men and women, but it's not OK in your mind to have separate institutions for unions of heterosexual and gay couples?

That's not a very consistent implementation of "equality", is it? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

What is the purpose of marriage? Maybe I don't know.

My guess is that there are many different purposes depending on who you ask.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

What is the purpose of marriage? Maybe I don't know.

My guess is that there are many different purposes depending on who you ask.

There was a PGA Tour, where the best goflers play golf. At some point, we decided that we should allow women to play pro sports too. None of them have the athletic gifts that the best men golfers have, so we let women play in a women's league. If you allow men to play in the women's league, it defeats the purpose.

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with playing golf.

Can't one argue that allowing men to marry one another defeats the purpose of marriage?

What is the purpose of marriage? Maybe I don't know.

My guess is that there are many different purposes depending on who you ask.

So Mike, I'm assuming these people who believe that people get married for reproduction would want a ban on marriage where the woman is 55 or older, and both members would have to pass fertility tests. Otherwise, there's no point in getting married, right?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):So Mike, I'm assuming these people who believe that people get married for reproduction would want a ban on marriage where the woman is 55 or older, and both members would have to pass fertility tests. Otherwise, there's no point in getting married, right?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):You told me that one could argue that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage. I figured you might have an argument on why you thought that could be argued.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):You told me that one could argue that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage. I figured you might have an argument on why you thought that could be argued.

"Yet this has nothing to do with choosing a romantic or sexual partner. There are choices which aren't smart in these cases, too, but you can choose anyone you'd like provided they agree to choose you as well.”

Should I fix the wording in my question?Which choice was “smart?”

When I say there are choices which aren't smart in terms of sexual partners, the not-smart choices are for a a variety of reasons, ranging from things such as simple incompatibility to disease transmission, which have nothing to do with sexual preference.

It appears you ASSUMED (incorrectly, as often happens) that I meant there were choices which weren't smart when it came to sexual preference.

I understand it.Gay couples don’t want to be married in any different way than heterosexual couples are married.

Clearly you do NOT understand it.

Gay couples want to get married to someone of the same gender, which is DIFFERENT than marrying someone of the opposite gender. That means they want to get married differently.

If you still don't get it after I spelled that out for you, then you're either incredibly stupid or being deliberately stubborn, and in either case there is no helping you.

I think you thinking it’s “different” is part of the roadblock in our lines of thinking, and gets to the heart of our argument.

It's a logical FACT that marrying someone of the opposite gender is not the same as marrying someone of the same gender. The OBVIOUS difference is the gender of the partner.

You might as well be saying there is no biological difference at all between a man and a woman.

I don’t see it as different.It’s 2 people getting married.

You don't see a difference for your THOUGHT PROCESS, but the FUNDAMENTAL difference is obvious, as I already stated.

What do you prefer?Hot dogs or hamburgers?Do you have to think about it, and “make a choice” on what you preferred?Or do you just like one better than the other, based on taste?

This is the PERFECT analogy.

I could enjoy either a hot dog or a hamburger. Sometimes it might be one, another time it could be the other. I could choose to eat either one, both, or none at any given time. Even if I would rather have a hot dog on one day, I may eat a hamburger instead, or vice versa.I always have a CHOICE in the matter, and when I make that CHOICE, that determines what I eat at that time. You can't say I'm a hot dog eater if I'm eating a hamburger and don't eat a hot dog or vice versa - but that choice could also change at any time, and then what I'm eating would be different.

Similarly, a person can CHOOSE to have a romantic and/or sexual relationship with either men, women, or both at any given time. Even if they would rather be with a man, they could be with a woman instead, or vice versa. They always have a CHOICE in the matter, and when they make that CHOICE, that determines their sexual preference at the time. You can's say they are gay if they're with someone of the opposite gender or straight if they are with someone of the same gender, and those choices could change at any time, and then their sexual preference would be different.

Do you understand now that I used your own analogy to explain it?

Yes, I believe it is pre-determined which sex you are most attracted to.

Now I'm curious: Do your fatalistic beliefs extend beyond issues of sexual preference? Do you also think where you live, your job, or even what you wear every day are pre-determined? Where do you draw the line?